Sunday, January 30, 2011

The Detroit Video

What's your opinion. I thought the video shows extremely graphically what gun control folks have been saying all along, that being armed during one of these attacks is of little or no use. You'd have to be positioned just right in order to stop the attack. The most heroic cop there got shot in the head for his trouble.

Another thing is the shooter's hesitation at the end. It's as if he'd shot enough people and stood there waiting for the "suicide by cop" part. If he'd continued attacking, the innocent victims would have been more, further proving the first point.

18 comments:

Most shootings happen in only seconds, with little warning. The chance that a bystander will be in position and able to draw their gun before it's all over is small, to say the least. And these cops were armed, well-trained, and in familiar territory, yet still didn't get the jump on their attacker. In most cases, the attacker then flees the scene within seconds, unlike this one.

Do doubt some of the pro-gun folks who comment here will vainly claim they are better-trained than these policemen, and that they wouldn't have been killed, and would have been better able to fire first or sooner. I'm doubting it.

I keep saying that the idea of an armed public being "on the alert" and "trained for action" to be able to deal with the spontaneous violence that should happen to occur in their near vicinity is the unfortunate result of little minds being programmed by choreographed violence in the media. There is no director and no script in real life and you can't reshoot the scene if some one fucks it up.Mike, here's a link for you:Mother in Florida shoots her teen age children for talking back:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/mom-kills-teens-talking/

"I thought the video shows extremely graphically what gun control folks have been saying all along, that being armed during one of these attacks is of little or no use."

The officers survived. The attacker did not survive. You may feel that the tools that kept these cops alive served "little or no use" but I'm willing to place a cash bet that they are most glad they had the tools that serve 'little or no use".

I thought the video demonstrates that there is no thing as "security" and that cops are not an effective means of stopping an "active shooter".

"Another thing is the shooter's hesitation at the end. It's as if he'd shot enough people and stood there waiting for the "suicide by cop" part."

"Do doubt some of the pro-gun folks who comment here will vainly claim they are better-trained than these policemen,"

Dang right I am better trained than that. The cops were shooting using the "spray and pray" method from behind concealment. This is how untrained Afghanis fight. Had these police officers been trained in certain fundamentals, such as aiming at the target, then they likely would have killed the perp faster.

Thanks Microdot, I posted about that one already. "Another Florida Gun Tragedy," I think is what I called it.

You guys crack me up with your stubborn hanging on. First you keep saying how much more safe we'd all be if more good guys had guns, then when I show you proof that it didn't work very well, you say, it could have been so much worse.

Guns do more harm than good and the good they sometimes do is usually limited.

@Mikeb: "Guns do more harm than good and the good they sometimes do is usually limited."

Source, please?

I think both of you guys just have some incorrect pre-conceived notions that you hang the rest of your beliefs on. Any biased studies or information you can find supports it, and the overwhelming evidence that disputes your bias gets disregarded.

"You guys crack me up with your stubborn hanging on. First you keep saying how much more safe we'd all be if more good guys had guns, then when I show you proof that it didn't work very well, you say, it could have been so much worse."

Guns are not a magical protection spell. They are a tool. The cops in that video didn't use their weapons as well as they could have. Despite that - they are alive.

If a fire extinguisher doesn't prevent you from getting burned, but does save your life - has it failed? Or was there merely room for improvement in your use of that fire fighting tool? Should no one own fire extinguishers due to the imperfect results of their use in one incident?

Orygunner: you always want a source for every statement we make, no matter how obvious. It's an obvious tactic for delay and causing doubt.

Here are sources for my statement about "most shootings happening in only seconds":

A quote from the book _Guns in American _ Society_: "Most shootings by police officers take place at close range and are over within a matter of seconds." Source:http://books.google.com/books?id=H_RrLyV9rDUC&pg=PA472&lpg=PA472&dq=%22most+shootings%22+seconds&source=bl&ots=OpR1NJqcrU&sig=qQCP8rvpwna2ygHhPeZyIkBZnM&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22most%20shootings%22%20seconds&f=false

A quote from the exec. director of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association: "You have to remember (police involved) shootings happen in seconds." Source:http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2000/jan/19/officer-cleared-in-other-shootings/

Quote from a police trainer: "the average shooting takes place in only 2.4 seconds." Source:http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:3hNnL7lA9C0J:http://archive.seacoastonline.com/2000news/7_2a.htm+%22the+average+shooting+takes%22+seconds&ct=clnk

From a participant from a Conceal Carry class: "The average length of time for shootings is 2.5 seconds." Source:http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11992&pid=134231&mode=threaded&start=

Oh, Orygunner, let's also not forget that the Tucson shooting, in which 19 were shot, including 6 dead, took only 15 seconds. Thanks to the killer's 30-round ammo clip, he'd gotten off 31 shots in 15 seconds.

Baldr, I'm afraid coming up with "proof" and "evidence" that will satisfy Orygunner is a tall order. Thanks for trying though. I just keep insisting that what's obvious needs nothing more than honesty in order for folks to agree.

Over at Joe Huffman's site, I've gotten bogged down with him and all his fanboys like Linoge about "proving" this: "gun violence is inevitable when there are guns in the society."

@Baldr, Thank you for offering some evidence. I thought we were discussing a mass shooting event, but you provided evidence of shooting events by police and self defense by citizens. However, you are correct, the evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of shootings are over in just a few seconds. Long, drawn out gun battles (outside of war) are a movie fantasy that rarely ever occurs in real life.

However, you're trying to use a video where the victims were armed and stopped their attacker to convince us that if the victims were armed, it wouldn't be a benefit, claiming that there's a slim chance the bystander could do anything positive.

Or that if one person was in the right place at the right time, it couldn't save lives? for most shootings, no, probably not. For SOME shootings, absolutely. (See the Panama City School Board Shooting).

Even in Tuscon, you claim it was over in 15 seconds. Obviously more than enough time for one person in the right place at the right time to stop the shooter in 5, or maybe 10 seconds, right? Can you honestly sit there and say that wouldn't be a benefit?

There's far more benefits of allowing concealed carry than this narrow scope of violent crimes (shootings) we are discussing, anyway. I'll agree that in most shooting events, an armed bystander wouldn't be able to do much good. However, that doesn't mean ALL. There's enough evidence that shows it CAN be a benefit in some events, and you haven't provided any evidence it would make the situation any worse.

You wrote: "gun violence is inevitable when there are guns in the society."

Sure, I'll agree. There's enough obvious evidence of that. Will you agree the following is also true?

-Firearm-related crime is inevitable when there are dangerous criminals allowed to walk the streets.

What do you think is the difference between your statement and mine?

I'm not sure why you and Baldr are balking at my requests for evidence (even though Baldr did provide evidence, it strayed from the topic), suggesting my requests are unreasonable or it's a tactic for "causing doubt" as Baldr put it. All I ask for is honesty, which it seems gun control supports such as yourselves dance and skip around the truth and refuse to consider all the facts.

I've asked a simple question: "Guns do more harm than good and the good they sometimes do is usually limited." How is that a "tall order" to prove? You're the one that made the statement, you should be able to back it up with facts, instead of opinions.

I've asked other simple questions: Where has gun control ever made any society safer? Since you keep suggesting we need more gun control, you must be able to prove that it would work, right?

Don't muddy the water trying to claim I'm unreasonable when you guys are the ones that won't answer the questions. I mean, these aren't trick or biased questions, are they?

Yes, obviously. If they can't get a gun, they can't commit firearm-related crimes, can they?

"And those guns come from you lawful gun owners mainly through lax or non-existent laws."

OK, here is our great disconnect, in that statement right there. I will agree, absolutely, that most guns used in crime here in the US originally came from a lawful purchase from a law-abiding gun owner. I'll even agree that it occurs that way because the law allows law-abiding people from buying guns.

But I don't understand how you claim that the laws are lax and "allow" dangerous criminals to get guns. The law currently PROHIBITS transfer and possession of a firearm to all felons, people with current restraining orders, people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, drug abusers/addicts, and people with serious mental health issues. Can you please explain how the law allows what it specifically prohibits?

Have you heard that nature will take the path of least resistance? Criminals, too, will follow that same natural law. It used to be anyone could buy a gun. When some states passed tighter laws requiring licences to purchase, criminals just took the next easiest route and bought elsewhere or used straw purchasers. When background checks were implemented, they just used straw purchasers or fake identification. What if you block off those routes of supply with full licensing and registration? Or "1 gun a month" laws? Or what about just banning guns all together?

History has shown us that the prohibited persons willing to break all those laws will simply find the next easiest route of supply. That's why states with more relaxed laws "supply" guns to states with stricter laws - path of least resistance. What makes you think once all legitimate routes are blocked off, that the next easiest route won't be used? It's nice to think that reducing availability of guns will reduce the supply to the street, but what makes you think the black market is going to play by your made-up rules?

You can imagine that "stronger" laws would reduce the supply and you can imagine that it would reduce the number of violent criminals that can get a gun, but what actual evidence do you have that this would actually work as you say it would? Has it worked for anything else that's been tightly regulated and/or banned, anywhere in the world?

Are you suggesting that we agree with your "tighter" gun laws based purely on faith? Purely on your limited scope of logic?

Without any evidence, that's exactly what you're doing. You maybe can sell people with emotional ties to the gun control issue, but I won't buy something just on someone's word alone that it's a good idea. I need proof, not faith or feel-good policies. I need logic that examines ALL the angles and factors involved, not wishful thinking or half-baked ideas that have failed everywhere else.

Where is the proof to back up your logic? It's not an unreasonable request, or a tall order to fill - WHERE is your proof outside your own head and your own words that limiting supply by law will limit the supply for those willing to break the law?

Orygunner: "But I don't understand how you claim that the laws are lax and "allow" dangerous criminals to get guns."

You don't? How about the laws which allow people to buy guns without background checks? If proper laws were enacted and enforced, many sellers who now turn a blind eye and say it's not my problem, would conduct the background check and refuse to sell. And your less determined criminals would just do without, it would be too much hassle for some of them. This would be the start of what could become a big improvement, and one which wouldn't hurt you.